Talk:British Library, Add MS 29987

Copying
MadmanBot is in error. we can clearly see that the page was "google translated" from the spanish wikipedia article. --Kiwi (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kiwi. MadmanBot isn't in error - as a bot, it can't really determine the copyright status of origin text, but can only note where material is copied. We need human review to determine the copyright status. :)


 * In this case, it seems that it flagged similarities at a mirror, but it does bring up the requirement for attribution, which I will explain further at your talk page. I'll take care of it here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on the article; title?
Totally missed that it exists. Congrats! Great work. Is "Add MS 29987" the best title for the article? I could see "London MS. Add. 29987" [note the order of MS and Add.] or "London codex (Trecento musical manuscript)" or simply "London 29987". I think that in any case, "London" should be in the title, since it's almost always included in descriptions. (P.S. User:Justlettersandnumbers -- who are you? You're my new hero! with the recent edits to various 14th c. articles that have been outstanding!). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you, but I think the article has a long way to go yet; I've yet to even glance at some of the more recent literature. The discography was added by, who created the article by translation. As for the title, I'm really not sure. It just does not seem to have any name by which it is commonly known; Reaney calls it Lo. I thought about various formulations such as "BM Add. 29987" (which is I think what it used mostly to be called), but decided that, for now at least, the reference under which it is kept by the library that holds it is probably as good a choice as any. I don't think a more generic title would necessarily be better – "London codex (Trecento musical manuscript)" would also fit the Robertsbridge fragment, for example. But I'm open to suggestions; there should be redirects from all other imaginable titles in any case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced duplicated content
I removed the last three paragraphs from the Works section as they are inaccurate, completely unreferenced, poorly written, and have already been rewritten elsewhere in the page. I don't believe they contain any useful content at all, though they result in certain amount of over-linking. I had intended to remove them after rewriting the rest of the page, but seem to have forgotten to do so. However, my removal was reverted by. Was there any particular reason for that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sections need references when they are controversial or likely to be challenged. What would you think is controversial about this part and I can add references.  I've been working on trecento music for, a little while and I didn't find anything there inaccurate or duplicated except in table form where the important aspects are not emphasized. The table did not substitute for the prose text to me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Add MS 29987. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216075723/http://puffin.cch.kcl.ac.uk:8080/diamm/Source.jsp?navToggle=1&sourceKey=694 to http://puffin.cch.kcl.ac.uk:8080/diamm/Source.jsp?navToggle=1&sourceKey=694

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)